^ Agreed.
Only reason it received (and still receives) an intense amount of online hate is because of the lack of quality from the first to the second. While I can't argue that the first was a more cohesive, well made film, the second one was still a fun movie to watch that had a lot going for it. I still really like it and like Kedrell said, it's one of the better superhero sequels IMO.
The main thing that pisses me off about IM2 detractors are those who say that 'SHIELD/Avengers stuff hijacked the film'; that if Marvel didn't insist on integrating elements from other franchises into the movie (Nick Fury, Cap's Shield, Coulson, etc) it would've been a much better movie.
Bullox. Horse crap. In total, I think SHIELD and Nick Fury had less than 9 minutes of screen time

This discussion about Natasha being useless has made me want to see Iron Man 2 again mainly for her scenes. I liked her character in the movie. I thought she was interesting had personality and served a purpose both narratively and given a varied type of action.

Its main problem is the villain: you cannot build up a villain such as Whiplash with Mickey Rourke and have him doing nothing during all the movie. And with no villain doing anything interesting - Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer was barely the comedic relief, no more than an enabler - the hero doesn't have much to do either: all that happened was Tony Stark fighting drunk with his pal - and we all knew nobody was in real danger there - and profuse introduction of the upcoming Avengers movie's characters. The plot about Tony dying got diluted in this narrative void.

This discussion about Natasha being useless has made me want to see Iron Man 2 again mainly for her scenes. I liked her character in the movie. I thought she was interesting had personality and served a purpose both narratively and given a varied type of action.

I can't see a vital purpose for her in the movie; nothing that was ultimately necessary. It wasn't until Avengers that she really shined.

Well boredom is pretty subjective. I wasn't bored at all. Now MoS and TDKR bored me quite a bit with their dour, drab boring plots and acting/story but I guess to each his/her own. IM2 had too much humor for it to be boring. In fact boredom is the last word I'd use to describe ANY of the IM movies.

Quote:

Its main problem is the villain: you cannot build up a villain such as Whiplash with Mickey Rourke and have him doing nothing during all the movie.

Oh he did stuff. I would have liked more but what he did was gold, IMO.

Quote:

And with no villain doing anything interesting - Sam Rockwell as Justin Hammer was barely the comedic relief, no more than an enabler - the hero doesn't have much to do either: all that happened was Tony Stark fighting drunk with his pal - and we all knew nobody was in real danger there

No hero is ever really in danger in any superhero movie other than maybe Kick-Ass or Watchmen(since there were no sequels to go for yet that movie still sucked).

Quote:

- and profuse introduction of the upcoming Avengers movie's characters. The plot about Tony dying got diluted in this narrative void.

I thought it was brought to a logical conclusion and I was satisfied. BW and Fury would be in an Iron Man movie even if there were no Avengers. And the Avengers stuff took up maybe 5 minutes of the whole thing. I didn't have a problem with it at all. They're doing more than making 1 simple film, they're building a universe.

Quote:

As for second parts, it's the least favorite of mine:

The Dark Knight
Spider-Man 2
Superman II
Batman Returns
X2

I'd rank IM2 far above any of those horrible-to-average movies.

Quote:

I can't see a vital purpose for her in the movie; nothing that was ultimately necessary. It wasn't until Avengers that she really shined.

Her purpose was to build on the universe. It wasn't her movie so it's not like it was supposed to show her story. She's supposed to be kinda a mystery in this film. I think she did just fine. Lois Lane in MoS, now there's a character who didn't need to be there nd only was there because it was expected. Same with Catwoman in TDKR.

__________________

Quote:

'If there are more years after 2019, there are more[MCU] movies after 2019' - Kevin Feige

Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.

Of sequels I'd say IM2 and Supes2 are the best and neither are as good as their predecessors. The only sequels that exceed their predecessors IMO do so because said predecessors were barely passable to begin with(X-Men, Spider-man).

__________________

Quote:

'If there are more years after 2019, there are more[MCU] movies after 2019' - Kevin Feige

Well boredom is pretty subjective. I wasn't bored at all. Now MoS and TDKR bored me quite a bit with their dour, drab boring plots and acting/story but I guess to each his/her own. IM2 had too much humor for it to be boring. In fact boredom is the last word I'd use to describe ANY of the IM movies.

Humor doesn't make it for a villain that spent the whole movie in jail, doing nothing (only to be rescued from there and taken to another place to keep doing nothing until the very last 5 minutes).

It's no secret that a hero without any villain to fight is a recipe for boredom. Or even worse, uninteresting subplots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedrell

Oh he did stuff. I would have liked more but what he did was gold, IMO.

That makes it even worse. He was a great threat having a great motivation. You have to be blind as a writer to keep that character doing nothing with so much potential.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedrell

No hero is ever really in danger in any superhero movie other than maybe Kick-Ass or Watchmen(since there were no sequels to go for yet that movie still sucked).

Yes, heroes are in danger when a threatening villain is about to kill them. But when it's a friend you know for sure nothing's going to happen. Tony-Rhodey fight was inane, started as some sort of joke and it became a senseless fight with no real tension. It was a big budget version of a drunken billionaire being a douche.

Now if Tony-Rhodey fight had been one of many great action sequences, why not. But other than Whiplash's first apparition there's NOTHING else action-wise to see until the very end of the movie. Except for this vacuous conflict.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedrell

I thought it was brought to a logical conclusion and I was satisfied. BW and Fury would be in an Iron Man movie even if there were no Avengers. And the Avengers stuff took up maybe 5 minutes of the whole thing. I didn't have a problem with it at all. They're doing more than making 1 simple film, they're building a universe.

Sure, your satisfaction is not in question here. But I doubt BW and Fury would have been there if it weren't for the upcoming Avengers movie. All they did was setting up Avengers while one was sitting there wondering whatever happened to the story one was watching. They just helped to keep the story stopped for longer than the inactive villain had achieved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedrell

I'd rank IM2 far above any of those horrible-to-average movies.

But neither its action nor its villain were better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedrell

Her purpose was to build on the universe. It wasn't her movie so it's not like it was supposed to show her story. She's supposed to be kinda a mystery in this film. I think she did just fine.

You get it. It was not her movie, it was not her story, that's exactly why she feels out of place. Building a universe that's not useful for the movie's plot at the expense of the movie's plot progression sounds a bad idea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by kedrell

Lois Lane in MoS, now there's a character who didn't need to be there nd only was there because it was expected. Same with Catwoman in TDKR.

Im done. Im leaving this website. I promise i will not be spiderman or attempt to be. I have a ral careerr to fulfill. Please don NOT tell anyone about this. I would appreciate if you all kept this a secret.

A villain that barely does a thing in a movie but being seated (and whose evil is expressed through a constant toothpick-chewing) and action that barely happens until the last 3 minutes. Strange choice to say the least.

IM2 is one of the weakest of the MCU lot but still better than most of Sony and Fox's Marvel films.

Fox-marvel fans specifically over-exaggerate the issues with this film in order to justify their stance on Spidey, FF and X-men remaining where they are...as if IM2 is anywhere as bad as Origins, Elektra, Ghostrider SOV, Warzone or Catwoman.